Alpha Centauri Forums
Old Test Forums
Alternative Histories
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
Old Test Forums
Alternative Histories
|
| Author | Topic: Alternative Histories |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-02-98 05:15 PM ET  
This a thread about Alternative History. In the Americans thread Krikkit brought up the intreging possiblity of British wining the American Revolution. These are some of my analysis's with a question by Spoe as well. Krikkit I do not agree with some of your anaylysis of an alternate world, where Britain won. In dealing with Alternative History, you have to remember everything changes. First of all, I don't a War would occur in 1932, I don't even think that the Brits would outlaw it; they'd be afraid of an American backlash (after all they were a fiesty lot). In a summery to a book I was looking at in Amazon.com about if Burgoyne won at Saratoga, and France and Spain didn't come to the US's aid. It made the assumption, that the defeated leaders of the Revolution escaped to modern day Texas and established a nation known as Jefferson. Imran Siddiqui 1801- Treaty of Mexico City signed between Spanish and Liberty, forming the Mexican alliance. 1805- Napoleon Bonaparte promoted to head of the French Army. 1808- Liberty buys Louisiana (not the whole territory) from Spanish for $10 million. 1810- Napoleon conquers all of Prussia and Austria for Louis the 14th. Louis stops Napoleon from invading Russia, and focuses him on the British. Louis signs peace treaty with Russia 1811- War of 1811 begins between British Colonies and Liberty, Spain, and French colonies in North America. 1812- Napoleon defeats the British at the Battle of Waterloo. Wellington dies in battle 1813- Treaty of Paris gives Florida to GB, British Columbia up to 54' 40" to Spanish. 1816- French and British sign Treaty of Berlin, ending the war between them and giving France, among other things, land in North America. 1823- Liberty purchases Louisiana Territory from the French for $25 million. More to come later, Imran Siddiqui Now that Imran's brought France further into it, what effect would a failed American revolution had on the prospects of a French revolution? In this country, at least, the successful revolution is pointed out as an example to others. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-02-98 05:32 PM ET
Well, I think the French would give up Lousiana Territoies because as in real life, they knew it couldn't work. On one side the British are on the Atlantic, on the other, Liberty has control of New Orleans (bought from the Spanish, not French). The only way would be through Liberty. Not worth the time. Another twist to my story: Britain becomes the free-est nation/empire on Earth, but by accident. Britain finnaly gavce into the colonists call for representation. However, when American colonists were represented the others wanted the same treatent, so a quasi UN was set up in Britain's Parliament, with subcommittees. Later, Britain allows each group of colonies to form its own government, overseen by a Governor General Another twist, after George the 3rd leaves the throne, Thomas Jefferson (yes, that one) writes to the King, seeing this grand republic, and asks for forgivness. The King is persuaded by this amazing note to readmit, Jefferson into the colonies, where he prompty gets selected to the Constitutional Convention of the American colonies. Jefferson's name becomes a bad word in Liberty, and in the North American War, their citizens burn pictures of Jefferson at the capital of Dallas. So it is idealistic, but what do you guys think. Any other, alternate histories or events would be appreciated. Imran Siddiqui |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-03-98 04:39 PM ET
I like that Imran. A quasi UN in the House of Commons.  What about the Lords though? |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-03-98 06:51 PM ET
How about this one: It's August 14th of 1914. The Samsonovs army is about to get surrounded near the city of Tannenburg and might give a chance for German army defeat 130,000 men army (which it did in real history). But Renenkampf finally decides to advance his army to help Samsonov and the now the German army it self is surrounded and 2/3rds of it gets destroyed or taken prisoners. (Hindenburg said that if Renekampfs army would've come just cloe to him without even firing a shot, the battle would've been lost). So instead of great defeat the battle turns in to victory and the whole Prussia is free for taking. The forces that were rushed to Eastern front now face 2 advancing HUGE armies and retreat hastily (now it's impossible to surround these 2 juggernauts). Although Russian officers incompitence and lack of supplies does slow down the progress greatly, it still gets to the border of Germany by 29th of August preparing to strike Fatherland. Meanwhile the German offensive is slowed down to a crawl because more forces were transfered to the East and Von Kluks army got outflanked on the Marne still (maybe even couple of days earlier) because Germany needed to defeat France fast and face Eastern onslaught. Russia doesn't loose any moment finally advances in to German land where it is faced with Fatherland reserves and reinforcments that were rushed there. After couple of massive battles Russian advance is stoped cold. On the West front Germany suffers more defeats as more troops are rushed to the East front and now Germany is traped between to armies that continue to increase in size and supplies for the final strike. The Austra Hungarian campaign is going good for the Russia as well since Germans can't send any help to their allies. The war ends 2 years later after massive coordinate battles and Germany surrenders (note America never enters the war). Well, these were a lot of details, maybe too much, but I'm sure the geography and the WHOLE history would be different since America never prooves it self as a military power, Russia expands it's influence to the Balkans and becomes Constitutional Monarchy after couple of years, Britain and France gain more colonies and the allied countries become super powers for a long time. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-03-98 07:14 PM ET
Alpha13, that was sweet. However, what happens to America? If I may? The US wisely stays out of the War of 1914 and keeps to itself. Isolationism is the way of America, but some realize that the US needs to expand outward. The 20's become a time of gradual prosperity, though nothing like later. The US gradually build up its fledgling military and under President Calvin Coolidge hits its greatest prosperty in the 1930's. In 1940's, war breaks out. The Japanese decide to attack America in 1941 and President Alf Landon started to mobilize the armed forces. General Douglass MacArthur was put in charge of the Army in the Pacific land wars. Admiral Nimitz was in charge of the Great White Fleet. After twelve years of vicious fighting, the Allies (US, UK {Australia}, and China) were victorious with the Battle of Tokyo. America greatly increases its power. It sets up a democratic government in China and Japan. China was under the threat of communism, but the communist leader, someguy named Mao was killed by the Japanese. The US, now open to the world became its leading economy. However, the greatest military and most powerful nation was the United Kingdom, which could only be riveled by the Russia Confederation. However, economic power rested in the hands of the US (they were like an 80's Japan). Imran Siddiqui |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-03-98 08:25 PM ET
Hmm, interesting theory Imran, but I was thinking more along these lines: Japan decides to increase it's holdings in China but can not ignore that other great powers such as Russia, Britain, France and USA are also contending for the same land. So the meeting was set up in Hong Kong (which was moderated by USA) in which the whole China was carved up in to 4 different colonies: Northen part goes to Russia as an addition to already HUGE country, Western part is divided between England and France (France gets the part which is adjacent to its Vietnam colony) and England still keeps Hong Kong, Japan gets the Eastern part which gets partially disputed with Russia that may set up future friction between two great powers, USA keeps the Phylipins and sets up Colonial Chinese Mediator organization that observs that China is being treated "fairly" and great powers follow the rules of the agreenment. Since Africa, Europe and mostly Asia is already under control of Allied Nations, USA tightens it's grip on South America and invades Canada to expand it's realm (just kidding about that last part ). So Impearilsm would reign supreme and people would have less freedome and more minor wars would follow later on (like Chinese Communist Reunification Army fighting against it's colonial leaders). |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-03-98 10:11 PM ET
Forgetting something Imran? Like the Great Depression? The economic circumstances that led up to the Depression would not be significantly changed by this scenario, and Coolidge was a custodial president who helped insure the Depression by doing nothing at all. The Democrats would have come to the power. Also, in your scenario the government would not have been nearly as stong as it could have been due to the lack of WWI and the alphabet soup blossoming of federal power in the Depresion, so America would be less able to fight the war. Lastly, Mao's a crafty character, and would not have been killed by the Japanese. His strategy was much more subtle than that. Whether he would triumph is debateable, it depends how succesful Japan was in this modified Pacific WWII. The more succesful Japan, the bigger the chance of communism after the war (5 brownie points to someone who can tell me why I say that). Still an interesting idea though. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-04-98 12:34 AM ET
Oh, oh, Japanese fought against Chang Kai-Sheks forces, so that Communist Chinese would fight aginst less troops because they were killed by the Japs. Do I get the brownie points. Also the GD doesn't happen because, Germany doesn't get money from the US (Dawes Plan) which stabilizes Europe, beacuse the US is still isolationist. Also the 20's were gradually prosporus, not lavishlly so. So that, people would think of investing in stocks, and especially not magin buying. Those are the two great causes of the GD: margin buying (destroyed US economy after Crash) and because of i, the ending of the Dawes Plan, which plunged the Europe futher into a downturn. America less likley to fight a war, notice that is why I said it took TWELVE years to beat the Japanese; in real like it took 4 years. Imran Siddiqui |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-04-98 01:17 PM ET
I'm going two thousand years back. It's 323 BC (correct me if I'm wrong) and Alexander the Great is not infected by that deadly virus. He decides to allow his (Greek) army to return to Greece and creates a new one, 500,000 men strong, by the conquered lands and attacks India. He manages to win the first battles under heavy losses and loses a great one against Pyros of India. He then asks his original legendary army to come back from Greece and with just 40,000 men he decides to bypass India and attack the great Chinese empire. The chinese leaders do not know the real might of Alexander's army and decide to send an equally sized (40,000 men) army to face him. Naturally the chinese army is easilly destroyed while the Greeks suffer almost no losses. The chinese still underestimate Alexander and send an army of 150,000 men to face him in an open area. Alexander leaves his infantry to fight and he takes the cavalry, goes around some mountains and attacks the chinese from behind. The chinese are suddenly surrounded, panic overtakes them and they are eliminated. The chinese leaders finally realize the strength of the Greeks and decide to form a powerful 2 million men army to face Alexander as he marches against Beijing. So, the chinese army is deployed in one of the large valleys of eastern China waiting for Alexander the Great and his army. The chinese leaders understood that Alexander was a strategic (Crack)Genius but still underestimated the combined Greek army. So their army is deployed equally through all the length of the valley. But Alexander and the main cavalry force is concentrated in one side of the chinese force with the remaining cavalry and some expert Athenian infantry on the other side. The other infantry and Phalanx units are spread in the center of the front with orders to hold the main chinese forces back. At the beginning of the battle the two sides of the Greek army hit the chinese wings and destroy them while in the center the Greek forces are having a very hard time by the chinese. In the meantime the two wings of Alexander's forces are united befind the chinese and instead of trying to surround them they move towards the chinese leaders. The Macedonian cavalry with Alexander ahead reaches the chinese leaders and kills them all. The news spread in the battlefield and the panicked chinese throw down their weapons and run to save their lives. But they cannot escape since on the one side there is Alexander and the cavalry and on the other there are the main infantry forces. The chinese defeat is total. Alexander now is preparing a plan to attack India with the Greek army. But there are problems in Greece. Athens, Thebes, Corinth and other cities defeat the Macedons in Greece and call back their soldiers from Alexander's army. From the Greek army of Alexander only the Macedons remain. He decides then to return to Greece to fight those Greek cities that revolted and unify Greece again. In the meantime the chinese revolt and form a new army (about 400,000 men) and move to face Alexander the Great knowing now that his army is purely Macedonian with no other Greeks. However, the stategic brilliance of Alexander and the famous Macedonian cavalry and Phalanx defeat them once more. CrackGenius PS To be continued... |
| Tolls |
posted 12-04-98 01:29 PM ET
Interesting army sizes... You should become an ancient historian, they were very good at inflating their figures (so to speak). |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-04-98 01:32 PM ET
Nice story CG. What about this one: Adolf Hitler decides in the beginning of the war to attack Dunkirk, rather than letting thousands of elite troops go to the UK. With lack of experienced pilots and armed forces, Britain gettes pummeled in the Battle of Britain without experienced pilots. On July 1943, Germany makes a landing on the beaches of England (alternate D-Day), and pushes back English troops led by Montgomery. Rommel pushes a couple of miles, but American reinforcements halt the German attack before they can reach London. The stalemate results in a peace agreement between Germany and Britain/US, with favorable terms to Germany (they get to keep France). In the east, the Germans, now not having to fight the British, lauch a full-scale attack on the USSR, and capture Moscow in 1945. Stalin is executed in public. In 1950, Germany develops the Atomic Bomb in response to America's bomb which ended the Pacific war. A Cold War develops between the US and Germany, and goes on for many, many years. Imran Siddiqui |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-04-98 01:51 PM ET
Tolls I did not inflate any numbers. In the last decisive battle of Alexander against the Pesian Empire he led his 40,000 strong army against the army of Darius which consisted of 1 million men. I believe that the Chinese would be able to form an army at least twice the size of the Persian. |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-04-98 02:12 PM ET
Imran if Hitler decided to attack our troops in Dunkirk and killed them I'd have no problem to leave France to his hands even if we were winning the war. After all the French were responsible for the situation. We sent them our elite forces and they could not stand even a month against Germany while we lasted 4 years and finally we (and the Americans of course) won them. As for the cold war between the USA and Germany, yeah I liked it. However, I don't think that we would not be able to defend England even without our troops in Dunkirk (the damned French again). But the Africa Corps would have more possibilities to win the war in Northern Africa since our forces would be called back to defend Britain herself. In this way Hitler would be able to get his hand on the Arab lands (oil) and then...who knows. Also Britain would not be able to support the Russians since we should reserve all our resources for ourselves and so the USSR would fall more easy to Germany. CrackGenius |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 02:42 PM ET
Imran, so you trying to say that because of Britain USSR would've lost. I tend to dissagree. First of all Stalin wanted to attack first (read: "Icebreaker" and "The Error to 10th degree")he just waited for Hitler to make a landing in England so he can strike at German flanks with his 5 million men army. So if Hitler was mad enough (against the wishes of all of his high command of course) to make that super landing then USSR would've struck under the flag of liberation. So this huge juggernaut (although pretty incompetent and with low moral) would've struck German forces and after massive losses would've finally come to the fascist borders. BUT that's when speculations begin: Would Russian soldier continue to fight for Stalin in a clear war of agression that has nothing to do with protecting Motherland, would people accept that as well? Although I believe Russian army would've had HUGE problems in every department (except for technology cause Russia still had the best tanks) it would've still conquered Germany which (by the will of a mad man) attacked British islands. (Soviet army was made to attack: Tanks = 20,000 compared to 6,000 German once just a small example). And of course there is another theory, WW2 is considered to be a savior of Stalin regime, so if Hitler postponed his attack on USSR because he had to attack British islands, then a civil war might've erupted. In 1941 Stalin just began a new set of purges as "enemy of the people" began to appear in high command and other military branches once again. The thing that saved most of the officers was war, but since Hitler didn't invade USSR yet, all of these officers are being questioned. More and more people begin to dissapear and these officers (already knowing that their fate is almost sealed) decide to take matter in their own hands. At first it's a small group (under command of Vlasov) but as they openely condemn Stalin and begin to turn their armies against him, more Generals join in. (Fact: Out of 5 million men army, 3.5 million were under command of Generals who said they wish to help Hitler in attack on Stalin just when German forces were invading. When German generals asked permission to use this newly acquired military might, Hitler said that their are leading the war of conquest and not liberation so most of these 3.5 million were sent to concentration and work camps. Which leads us to: What would happen if Hitler accepted a new fighting force?)A new civil war begins in Russia which is won by the generals since no one has a lot of love for Stalin. Stalin is publicly executed on the Red Square and a new set of reforms begin. Meanwhile German offensive slowed down on the islands as English troops fight city by city, street by street and constantly attack German supply convoys. As USA enters a war it is also gives great help to England using Land Lease program, and Hitler has no choice but to retreat his forces back to main land and soon face combined forces of Britain and USA. Hitlers plan on attack of USSR are not even thought about since that country represents no danger on his flanks and he can now fully concentrate against his Western enemies. The war drags on with skirmishes while Russia tries to recoupirate after perges and begins it's way to minor Democracy. After 5 years of stalemate, USA unleashes it's ultimate weapon: Automic Bomb which destroys Berlin and makes Germany surrender on allied turms. |
| Grosshaus |
posted 12-04-98 03:04 PM ET
This theory has nothing to do with the ones above: Hitler manages to strike further into Russia that he actually did. Moscow is lost in the fall of 1941. Finland sees that there is no reason not to cut the Murmansk railway or not to attack St. Petersburg, since Russia is clearly loosing. The railway is cut and the most important way for the Western allies to help Russia is lost. Also it becomes impossible to hold St. Petersburg without reinforcements over the Lake Ladoga after Finnish advancement. Finland conquers most of East Karelia and stops fighting after after that. The war last a few years longer and the front goes to about the Urals. After that the US has defeated Japan and is able to send troops through Siberia. Germans must retreat and after a few years Finland joins the war again on the other side. We push Germans out Fennoskandia with the aid of Sweden. Germany looses the war and Finland gets to keep East Karelia. With the aid of copper in Petsamo, vast amounts of wood and fishing rights in the Arctic Sea, Finland becomes one of the most prosperous and important countries in Europe. |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-04-98 03:15 PM ET
Alpha I diagree with almost all your post. If Hitler had attacked the British forces in Dunkirk he would have no direct threat on the West and he could send almost all his armies (which were considered unbeaten) against only one country. On the top of that Britain would not be able to supply with military and civil equipment the USSR (as we did in large numbers) and the Red Army would be alone. Of course the Russian winter would still stop for a while the German forces but not totally. Without a strong Britain as a threat on the West and without British supplies Moscow would fall by 1942. However I do agree with this part of your post:" English troops fight city by city, street by street and constantly attack German supply convoys". That's true. There was no way for Germany to occupy Britain. We had are not like the French. No Vichy here. Grosshaus I will make the wild guess that you are from Finland (I can't see your profile) and therefore I won't disagree with whatever you say about Finland. |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-04-98 03:15 PM ET
Alpha I diagree with almost all your post. If Hitler had attacked the British forces in Dunkirk he would have no direct threat on the West and he could send almost all his armies (which were considered unbeaten) against only one country. On the top of that Britain would not be able to supply with military and civil equipment the USSR (as we did in large numbers) and the Red Army would be alone. Of course the Russian winter would still stop for a while the German forces but not totally. Without a strong Britain as a threat on the West and without British supplies Moscow would fall by 1942. However I do agree with this part of your post:" English troops fight city by city, street by street and constantly attack German supply convoys". That's true. There was no way for Germany to occupy Britain. We are not like the French. No Vichy here. Grosshaus I will make the wild guess that you are from Finland (I can't see your profile) and therefore I won't disagree with whatever you say about Finland. |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 03:46 PM ET
Ok, so I guess I have to dig in to the history books again I see what you guys are saying: Dinkirk dead = Russia is attacked with FULL forces. But let's look at it this way, Germany didn't have a lot of forces there in the first place, although I'm sure defeat in Dinkirk would've brought couple of more divisions to the front lines, Moscow wouldn't be lost at all. How about an example: What if I tell you that the winter didn't stop German forces, but Russian people themselves. In USA there is no mention of heroic stand of Volokolamsk Highway where outnumbered, undersupplied Russian soldiers stoped Gouderian panzers dead cold. Now imagine that ok, Germany finally pushes through defense outside Moscow (with high casualty of course) and enters Moscow, remember Stalingrad? About the same thing would've happened there, as German forces would get decimated AND (as a final slap in a face) would have to face winter. Then Russian counter offensive would've destroyed German hold. All of you are saying that Moscow would fall so easily but never remember the city of Stalingrad, so just think of it as an early version. Even if Moscow did fall, it would've cost Germans HUGE losses AND would've just strengthen Russian soldiers spirit even more to avenge Motherland (putting all their hatred for Stalin aside). Most of the means of productions where already transfered to Syberia and USA supplies didn't help Russia THAT much. Although the war could've lasted longer, it could've also laster shorter since German forces would be so decimated and the Russian counter offensive (driven by anger AND new production of T-34's) under able command of General Zhukov would push Germans back. I use these theories by example of what Russia did in real war, not just saying "Moscow taken = Stalin dead = Russia lost", and of course there is a people factor who would lead relentless partisan and front line warfare. Although more losses would be suffered because of lack of USA supplies, at the end (maybe half a year later then original war ended) Russians would prevail. |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 03:57 PM ET
Comment to Crack Genious: 1 million man army eh? Napoleons Grande Arme was 350,000 men and was considered to be THE largest army (to that point of time) so I don't see how it was possible to have 1 million men army (supplying was HELL for Napoleons army, but back then it would be worst). |
| Autarch |
posted 12-04-98 04:47 PM ET
CrackGenius: Get off the Crack and stop listening to Iron Maiden. Darius did not lead an army of one-million men against Alexander. Ancient historians did like to inflate the numbers of the soldiers who fought in ancient battles. Autarch, Strategos |
| Spoe |
posted 12-04-98 04:57 PM ET
1) I doubt, even with the detruction of all the forces as Dunkirk, that Germany would have been able to force a successful beachhead in Britain. Why? The one factor most of you haven't mentioned. The Royal Navy. The Royal Navy was much larger than the Kriegsmarine, which would have made it relatively easy for the RN to take out the invasion force in the Channel. The Gremans may have been able to land some troops on British soil, but resupply would have been a nightmare. 2) Barbarossa may have started earlier(though possibly not as early as originally planned). Why? No British forces in the Balkans. Now, granted the Greeks were responsible for most of the Allied advances in this theatre, but would they have held out as long without some British troops there once the Wehrmacht was deployed to the area? 3) North Africa/Mediterranean/Middle East. I agree, the DAK would possibly have gotten much farther, taking oil fields. Let's assume they did. Let us also assume the Germans carried out their attack on Malta(remember, we're presuming a reduce British presence due to the change at Dunkirk). This gives the Germans fairly secure lines of communication in the Med and would also secure Italy from attack. Torch may not have happened. It also removes air bases the were used to attack the Axis' southern flank(e.g. the Ploesti raid). One possible remedy would be for Stalin to allow American air bases on Soviet territory(possible, but I consider it unlikely at best). 4) Longer range changes(here's where I really stretch things). A) The Me-262 is a much more effective platform. Why? Two reasons. First, the engine would likely have had a longer service life than 10 hours flight time because the titanium resources of Turkey would have been in Germany's grasp, allowing for better turbine blades. Second, there wouldn't have been the fuel problems affecting the Me-262 or the German military machine as a whole. B) Possibly a separate peace with the Soviets due to increased forces 1943 on(yes, I realize that there were more T-34s built than any other WWII tank aside from the Sherman) leading to something of a stalled front with minimal territory gains on either side. |
| Grosshaus |
posted 12-04-98 04:59 PM ET
Alpha13: Stalingrad was surrounded by a big river (Volga is the name also in English I presume), Moscow doesn't have that benefit. Yes there is a river running through the city, but it's not the biggest in Europe. But still, the Russians very very fierce when fighting in one of their own cities and the conquest of Moscow would have been hard. By the way, in Winter War AND Continuation War(1941-1944) Finnish troops had clear superiority in winter equipment and survival over the Russians. Why did the Russians still stand winter better than the Germans, which had far better equipment? |
| Grosshaus |
posted 12-04-98 05:11 PM ET
I meant were very fierce. 8 years of English simply isn't enough... Just came up with another scenario: After the conquest of Singapore Japan moves her forces to the north and to the west. Simultaneously Germany leaves UK alone and attacks Russia and Egypt with full power. Japan also declares war on Russia and starts to conquer Siberia, while also fighting to gain India. Rommel wins in El-Alamein and moves further to east. Both forces rush to Persia to cut the supply line from the US. Soon it is cut, because there will be close to no guerrilla operations (white mans war and all that). Russia is suffocating between two fronts and will eventually surrender. And remember, the US never joines the war (well perhaps if some troops were killed in Persia...) After Russia, Germany focuses on England and Japan on Australia. Scary, huh? |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 05:27 PM ET
Good, I see that people have droped "Moscow falls = Russia taken over" theory. And to dismiss any Dunkirk theories that lead to destruction of USSR: Russia fought against almost 90% of all German forces, while other forces where spread out everywhere else, so if the battle of Dunkirk was a success, I don't think these extra 2 or 3% would be a decisive factor against USSR. Spoe: I agree with many of your deductions, especially earlier attack on Soviet Union. Although this wouldn't really matter since Germany would've still be stoped at Moscow because (guess what) winter also did BAD things to Russians. I know it's hard to believe because we Russians are suposedly imprevious to cold and all of our supplies are 100% winter proof, but guess what, a lot of reinforcments for Moscow were stalled (that includes quite a lot of tanks), fuel was also becoming scarce because of freezing tempatures. So without winter German AND Russian armies would've been helped evenly since Moscow would've gotten much needed supply, men and tank reinforcments. I also dissagree on seperate peace since Stalin and Russian people were willing to fight to the victorius end. To answer Grosshaus comment: Russians were in bad conditions like Germans. Since all communication lines were broken and also because of huge confusion, a lot of needed winter supplies couldn't be send or reach their distenations. I believe Finnish army was a small and elit one, but it would never attack Leningrad (like it didn't in real history) because Finnish military command knew at the appauling and needless losses they would suffer. Stalingrad: Russia didn't win Stalingrad because of a river, it won there because of sheer will and menpower. And let's not forget Zhukov as a commander there. He organized defense of Moscow and Defense-Counter Attack of Stalingrad. I can't say he was a military genious, but he was a very able general. |
| Grosshaus |
posted 12-04-98 05:44 PM ET
Leningrad was left alone by us also because when we had the change to attack, or actually cut the last supply line, our leaders could foresee the loss of Germany. When we didn't attack, we got better peace terms. The same goes to the second Murmansk railway. |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 05:46 PM ET
It just puzzles me that Russia is made to look so helpless and defensless in the posts and these scenarios when it defeated 90% of German forces even after suffering 2/3rds of the whole Red Army destruction. Look at real history before making wild assumptions. Anyway, let's move on to next "what-if" Gross introduced. In 1939 Japanese army was defeated by Red Army. And afterwards a border line was set and more troops were transfered for defense. 1941: Germany strikes Soviet Union and historical events begin. But lo and behold, treacharous Japan also attacks Russia. Soviet forces were prepared for Japan to attack them (after 1939 highly defensive measure were taken) and Japan gainst only a little ground. Although this bold action does slow down some of the supplies and troops that were meant for Moscows defense, the Russian troops still continue to fight against not a very big Japanese army that has almost 1/3rd of it fighting in India where a professional English/Inidian army is putting up a brave fight. Later next year all the Siberian supply convoys and factories are established and work for 2 fronts. Although war lasts longer (maybe half or even full year) because of Japanese attack and USA non-involvment (although I'm almost sure that USA would've entered the war anyway since Roosevelt saw the need of Allied powers prevailing over Axis) the allied powers are still victorius but with heavier casaulties then in "original" war. |
| Spoe |
posted 12-04-98 06:17 PM ET
I, for one, have never assumed that the Red Army was weak in WWII. My postulation was that increased production levels in Germany would, when combined with a few extra percentage points of troop, allow them to stop the Soviet counter attack. Maybe not an immediate peace, but after a while of fairly futile battle over a stagnant front line I'd guess they would both be ready to call it quits. Also, my point about Barbarossa was more just thrown in. I did not draw the conclusion that this would result in the fall of the Soviet Union, or even Moscow. |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 06:25 PM ET
Ok Spoe, fair enough. But I don't think they will call it quits. Did Hitler surrender or offer any type of diplomatic solutions in 1943-44 when it was clear that the tide has turned? No. Or how about Berlin, Germans fought to the last man there. Were they tired? Yes. Did they stop fighting? No. So I don't think there would be a peacefull solution. German industry was also constantly bombarded by Britain and USA so it helped slow down the process of more tanks and supplies to East front. Defeat at Dunkirk would've never stoped huge production of air planes by Britain and USA. So bassically at the end the regular historic scenario opens where Germany is totally defeated by 1945 (well, maybe a months later then in real history ). |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-04-98 06:32 PM ET
Wow! I am happy. When starting this thread I thought it'd get few responses and quickly die away. Was I wrong! I'd like to thank you for you're intriguing scenarios. Btw, I never thought the Russians would bow down to Germany, I assumed that if the Germans might avoid winter (more troops, so could fight the Greeks and Russia at the same time), Moscow might fall. This is the fun of alternative history: the different perspectives of people on an event. Godd job, all of you. Continue the good work! Imran Siddiqui |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-04-98 06:40 PM ET
Whoops, forgot my scenario! What if on the day of the Battle of Waterloo, the sky didn't open up and make the land muddy. The rain prevented Napoleon's calvary (an very good one) from fighting at their peak. Historians say that the rain benefitted the Brits and ended Napoleon's career. However, what if the rain didn't come, mudding the ground? - Napoleon's army, after a great fight, beat back the British. Wellington is hit by a shot and is mortally wounded. He's death causes much of the Brits to panic. The British must retreat. Napoleon then begins, again, his conquest of Europe. Prussia is overrun, as is Italy. Austria comes next. A wiser, older Napoleon decides not to attack Russia, yet. Maybe when the spring comes and his army is stronger. However, Napoleon dies. One of his generals takes his place, and avoids Russia altogether. This one is concerned with Britain. The Continental Alliance prevent the UK from growing powerful, and France become the leader of Europe, until the empire breaks up because of faulty leadership and patriotism. Imran Siddiqui |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 06:52 PM ET
LOL all of these scenarios come down to one thing: Russia. As the battle of Waterloo progressed and Austrian/Russian armies (MUCH bigger) were on their way to France. So let's say for example Napoleon did win in Waterloo, but he now has to face another army (much bigger then Welingtons) while his troops are have been pounded on. Even as Napoleon gets more reinforcements, he would still not be able to do it in time for inevitable attack of Austrian/Russian armies that were closing in FAST. |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-04-98 06:55 PM ET
I agree, conquering Moscow would not have been easy nor helpful to the Germans. Also, Hitler's orders were to totally raze the city and to build a resevoir there as sort of a monument to crushing Slavs (who needs half measures when you have fanatics?), so the city would provide no help. Here's my alternate scenario: a certain German bomber does not go off-course and bomb London during the battle of Briatin (the plan originally called for strictly tactical bombing of airfields and planes to prepare the way for invasion). British planes do not bomb Berlin in retaliation. High Command (read Hitler) does not get enraged at this and change the plan to a campaign of terror against London. Instead, the RAF never gets a chance to rebuild and continues getting weaker. Also, instead of invading England, Germany is quite content to conquer the rest of the world, like Africa and the Middle East while Japan attacks Hong Kong and Singapore a little earlier than they originally did, without declaring war on America. Britain remains under the heel of the constant German air raids, which have so crippled the RAF that there are now more bombers for destroying plane factories and even other war material factories, but it never goes to civilians (yet). Japan continues on to attack Paupa New Guineau and Burma, even threatinging Australia and India. Russia remains in turmoil, without Hitler attacking them. At this point Roosevelt, despite massive criticism, decides to intervene and threaten to join the allies if Hitler didn't agree to peace. Hitler backs down and agrees (and Churchill agrees as well, since his people are less enraged due to the lack of strategic bombing), and instead turns his might toward Russia in late winter of '42. With the still woefull unprepared Russian army hurt by purges, and veteran troops from Africa helping the Germans out as well as the full strength of the Luftwaffe, Hitler rolls through Russia. The elite Siberian divisions that stopped Hitler in front of Russia never come, because they are too busy with the Japanese army who now has nothing to do in the South with the peace of Britain/Holland, and are now pouring from Manchuria into the Russian East. Russia is partitioned with East to the Japanese, West to Hitler, and the Urals are no-man's land due to the guerilla Russian fighers there. After the completion of the conquest of West Russia (or what's left of it due to scorched earth tactics) in the fall of 42, Germany pulls its army back to warmer climes. Meanwhile the US is fast at work on the atomic bomb. I'm not sure what happens now, whether a cold war or a resurgence of fighting. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-04-98 07:14 PM ET
Interesting indeed Snowfire, however our Russian friend may not like it so much, LOL. Yes, it does seem as if Russia is involved with everything. Think of it as Russia has been involved in many important things. Anyway, he're a scenario that really doesn't deal with Russia that much. After Watergate, the Washington Post workers pursuing the story, Woodward and Burnstein, are mysterious murdered (think CIA). Beacuse of this Nixon's involvment never gets out. Nixon finishes his term and ends up with peace with China and the USSR. In 1976, Ronald Reagan beats Gerald Ford in the primaries and Jimmy Carter for President. He is hit hard by the OPEC crises, especially after his tax cuts pass. He starts to build up the military and it pays off when he lets the Shah of Iran in and hostages are taken. Reagan promises to get them out no matter what. He talks of nuclear weapons, and Iran gets scared and gives up its prisoners. The OPEC embargo gets worse. The US decides to invest in Alaskan oil more now. In 1980, Reagan narrowly beats Mondale. Most anaysts say that if Mondale said he wasn't going to raise taxes, he would have won. The oil embargo ends,and American starts to prosper, beacuse of the tax cuts. Reagan starts to challenge the USSR, with military buildups, and calls them an "evil" empire. In 1984, Robert Dole, Reagan's vice president is elected, and he suddenly decides to balance the budget and cuts military spending as well as social services. This results in unemployment and unpopularity, however, the deficit is balance by 1988 elections, which Dole loses to Gary Hart. (To be continued) |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 07:23 PM ET
Hey! At the end of Imrans scenario USSR looses still! I don't like it. Just kidding, actually I think all these political things are secondary to a great (and inevitable) American prosperity. So maybe USA would be ruled by Republicans right now, but the great economic expansion would still occure. |
| Spoe |
posted 12-04-98 08:00 PM ET
Heh. You seem to be describing Sir Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory pretty well, here. Simply put(after a revision in 1919 from his earlier 1904 theory): Who rules Eastern Europe rules the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland rules the World Island(Eurasia and Africa). Who rules the World Island rules the World. I don't think I really need to elaborate on how this applies to Russia. ---- Imran: |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 08:01 PM ET
Boy, that's a lot of what ifs in one scenario Snow. Yep, time to bring my 2 kopecks in > A lot of you keep mentioning '42. So let's see how Russia will be like in 42. I believe 2 things might've happened if Germany didn't attack Russia till 42 (I mentioned them before but let's just do a quick recap): 1) USSR attack Germany on 41' because Stalin got tired of waiting for the operation Sea Lion (some historians believe he wanted to attack in late August/early September if Germany didn't attack England) and the huge army advances towards Geemany with heavy losses to both sides etc.. etc.. (German forces were positioned in attack formation on the Russo-German borders so it would be VERY hard to defend). At the end Russia takes Germany but now faces a turmoil in its own country. 2) New purges clear a way for a civil war as Generals (and soldiers) get tired of this paranoya and make an open rebellion which was already almost inevitable (army was highly dissatisfied and that was the only thing that made Stalin cling to his power, so no army = no power). So I guess in Snows scenario it's option #2. Hmmm, first of all I believe Britain didn't want any peace terms (it declined all the offers Hitler send them) and they would be further enraged because a lot of industrial complexes are in civilian sectors, so you can't destroy one thing without hurting the other. So England would continue to stand (even though without big air force to back it up). Now let's move to the East. Japan never attacked USSR, why not? It had a greater enemy to face: USA. Japan knew that USA entrance in to war was almost inevitable AND America did have Phylipines that was checking Japanese influence in Asia. So it was almost inevitable for Japan to attack USA and try to defeat American navy so later peace agreenment would be signed on Japanese terms (Japan never wanted to invade USA, it knew it never had resources and man power to do it). BUT a partial army could've attacked USSR which I think would be checked by numerous but disorganized Russian army/people (since there was a civil war and Stalins power quickly overthrown). On the Western front German would've had to face the lesser then original army, but now it would be fighting truly for motherland (in other words these 3.5 million soldiers wouldn't even think switching sides since Stalin is not in power anymore and their "hero" generals are) so fascist troops would have a much harder time reaching Moscow and get stuck there. Although civil war would criple Soviet Economy and it's production, it would still have enough power to stop German juggernaut because of higher moral and reason to fight for. Later on USA supplies would be send in as well and Russia would have start to rebuild it self from defensive to attacking force. From there on a war will continue on more or less historical basis (postponing the end of the war maybe couple of months since USA would use it's cool Automic bomb on Germany to force its surrender). |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-04-98 08:18 PM ET
This is what yoy miss when busy talking online. I wrote that around 2:30 (Autrach's post was the last one) and look what I miss. Interesting Imran. However I don't see Iran backing down at the threat of nukes, and how's it sound when the prez threatens to destory the world just to save some hostages? Who will probably be killed anyway? Reagen wouldn't do that, and if he did, he wouldn't get reelected. Also, I agree with Alpha on Waterloo- Napoleon had about 130,000 men in his army as I recall, Wellington 90,000, and the Austrian/Russians 120,000 men. While he could win each battle seperately, even if he won Waterloo, it would be a Phyricc victory. He would not have enough to plunge into Prussia again. Sorry to keep on critiquing your Imran. But Alpha already did Gorsshaus's. Someone other than Imran put up an alternate history so I can criqique it! |
| Kurn |
posted 12-04-98 08:38 PM ET
How do we know that the us will even invent the a bomb in that alternative history. With the demise of the German Powerhouse, I doubt the americans will pump millions of dollars into the Manhattan Project. |
| Alpha13 |
posted 12-04-98 08:47 PM ET
Kurn, USA pumped millions of dollars before Pearl Harbor and theoretical demise of German power. |
| Spoe |
posted 12-04-98 08:54 PM ET
Good point, if you are talking about a deviation before WWII. The main impetus to the US bomb effort was to beat Hitler to the bomb. ---- Here's a new one. What if in WWI Germany had carried out the Schlieffen(sp?) plan as laid out instead of modifying it(reducing the forces meant to sweep through Belgium into France). Even as modified, it stood a decent chance of success, except for two things that were not followed: If either of these had not occured, Germany might have won a quick victory on the Western front, and had more resources for the Eastern front, where it won IOTL. What effect would this have had on the post WWI timeline? Would the British have agreed to a peace with German reparations to Belgium for violating their neutrality(that being one of the major stated reasons for British involvement)? |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-04-98 09:09 PM ET
Unlike Russia or America, which could survive the loss of their capitals, France would be seriously damaged. The Schifflen plan was brillant, and it would have worked if they hadn't messed with it (not that I'm glad they had of course). If the British played it right they would occupy Southern France and set up a boundary where trench, defensive warfare could resume. This would again allow the destruction of Russia and perhaps allow Germany not to play so aggresively in the submarine warfare arena, which eventually got the US involved (even though the US was of little help in WWI. They simply shortened the war with psychological effects, as Germany, already strapped for men, realized it had no hope against limitless supplies of American men and resources.) With America out and Russia out, maybe Germany could have forced Italy out as well. Then Germany decides to stop and have peace because it's running out of people and have already conquered most of Europe, and we end up with a new France with Paris as a Free City (a la Jerusalem) inbetween the British (Southern and Western) zone and the German (Toward the Low Countries) zone. Italy would be allowed to continue, but as a powerless state forbidden to take sides (like Austria after WWII). Russia is taken by the Bolsheviks, Poland never comes back into existence, and Wilson never gets to show off his 14 points. Turkey relinquishes its Arabian lands after heated guerilla warfare by on TE Lawrence, but keeps some European possesions. |
| Fjorxc the Maniac |
posted 12-04-98 09:47 PM ET
Here's an interesting one, just off the top of my head...admittedly, I got the idea from a trailer at the back of "The Hammer of God" by Arthur C. Clarke.
Assume that the asteroid which caused Tunguska was delayed in some way in which it really wasn't. If the Tunguska asteroid had been delayed for only three hours, it would not have destroyed Siberian forests. Rather, it would have destroyed Moscow. Think about the consequences of that...no Moscow, possibly no Red Revolution, though that might have been inexorable, only with different leaders...I believe St. Petersburg was still the capital at that point, soo...but it probably would have had a great effect on how World War I turned out. Whaddaya think? As a POD, that is. Fjorxc the Maniac(CWAL Hunt Valley) "There is one thing that all ancient civilizations, both in their leadership and mythology, have in common. Incest." |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-04-98 10:38 PM ET
Interestingly enough, on the CivII expansion pack WWI scenario, I was able to roll through most of Frace except for 2 cities in the south in 1 turn due to the railroads the French built for me that conviently destroyed the need for trench warfare. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-05-98 12:44 AM ET
Fjorxc, insteresting you bring that up. The so called asteroid that exploded over Tunguska has much mysety over it. People described it as being pipe shaped and change directions many times, leading some to believe it was a UFO explosion. That blast was seen in Moscow, I read. Anyway, I don't like really long posts, so I'll throw out a scenario to you guys, and see what you can do with it. In an alternative histories book (a collection of short stories), there was a story dealing with mideval Europe. It said, instead of the Black Plague only killing 1/3rd of Europe, what if it killed 2/3rds. Then it said that the Ottoman Turks would conquer Europe and Islam would be the religion of the world. In the story, a tale of espionage between two African Empires develops. England just repudiated Islam and became Christians as well, adding to political turmoil. What is the future of this story line? Imran Siddiqui |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-05-98 01:43 AM ET
Not neccesarily. First of all, has the Protestant Reformation occured yet (before the Turks roll in)? I'm assuming no since there was quite a lag in history between those two events. First of all, the Turks were remarkably toelrant to non-Muslims in conquered lands. They had a different law for Christians and Muslims and if a Christian commited a crime, he would face justice in Christian courts. Now, of course, if you wanted a government job you had to be Muslim but it's not like you were forced. If the Ottomans did invade, I don't see their empire reaching Britain. Also Scandanavia, and Greater Russia would probably remain safe. Their government became notoriously inefficent the farther it was from Turkey. I'd say it would last no longer than the Huns did in Europe, or at most the Mongols in Russia. The Ottomans remain a power in the Balkans, assuming they get their government act somewhat together, and the Protestant Reformation is set back by decades since Christians feel more a sense of Unity under the boot of the Ottomans. |
| PawtheUnstuk |
posted 12-05-98 03:40 AM ET
Interesting theory Imran, but you need a little work on your European history: Louis XIV was dead long before Napoleon came to power, possibly before Napoleon was born. Louis XVI was in power during before the french revolution. He was an imbicile, and absolute idiot. And I kind of doubt Napoleon would have been really in to serving under someone, it wasn't exactly his personality. there are alot of interesting parrallels though, this one just doesn't seem 0to plausible though. England already had a representative Parlement. The Parlement actually had most of the power. During the US Revolution, the Torys were in power. The Tories traditionally support the king, and at the time the PM, Lord North (I think that was his name) was more or less a puppet of King George. The Whigs coming to power was one of the reasons America got such generous treatment at the Treaty Of Paris: The Whigs figured that if they exagerated the loss the British suffered in the US Revolution it would make the Tories look worse. As for England being the most free and democratic, it wasn't that much less free than America was....you're comparing 20th century america with 18th century England...not a good comparsion. In America, we still had slaves, plus the not exactly well treated commoners of the north, although they were certainly better off than there British counterparts. Free Capitalism does have some benefits. Kepp in mind, however, that at the time only old white male property owners could vote... more later |
| PawtheUnstuk |
posted 12-05-98 04:04 AM ET
I dunno about that WWI thing Alpha...I think the Russian Revolution would have happened anyway, although maybe after they took Germany....The Allies and Russia would be facing each other down over the prostate body of Germany...Deju vu anyone? Except no US this time. The Russians once again become a mighty military power under Stalin, the US econmy expereinces a boom, although smaller than what they got in real life. No where this differs from the real WWI: There is no Wilson to promise an end of Imperialism. The "independence" movement in China is set back a little, because they don't get their hopes up. Hitler rises to power even faster than in real life (because the sanctions imposed are even worse with no Wilson to yell at the British and French Imperialists. I imagine a similiar situationi arises in Japan. The Depression happens later because the boom was smaller, but the end result is the same, FDR is brought to power. Hitler rises to power at more or less the same time, the difference being that R ussia now controls much of eastern Europe, and is proabably right up againist Germany's border. Stalin proabably attacks Germany before they can build up to much. The French and British are still pacifistic. They are shocked at Russia's agresssion, but he plays them the same way Hitler does, saying he'll stop after taking so much of Germany. Germany is reduced to half size, What we call WEst Germany (maybe less) forming a Russian-French buffer. The French and British pacifists choose to ignore Stalin's occupation of Germany, and of course....The US econmy is still in the toliet. Without WWII, the US never gets out of the depression...eventually, with Pacifists never repudiated in England and France, and the Depression getting only slowly better in the US (as compared to Russia's huge military expenditures, which Britain and France ignore.) Russia eventually sweeps into France, conquers it, the British and weakened US are no match, The Russians conquer the world...hot damn. Now, a couple of ways ways this might not happen: AhLampros |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-05-98 04:41 AM ET
Disagree I must, Paw. I don't believe the USSR would attack Germany, I mean why would it? Stalin never forced aggresion on any other nation in his reign. Also, the US would have been out of the Depression by Roosevelt's death. The US was coming out of the Depression by the time WW2 rolled around. Anyway, I believe is the US was still in the Depression by 1945, a Socialist Revolution would have occured. After all, in the GD, the Communist Party was at its peak. Here's my take on your scenario, btw: Hitler signs a non-agression pact with the USSR while building up his army. He decides to strike at France, which crumbles. The US pours money into England, strengthen its economy (US). However, the fighting reaches an impasse and peace must be signed with Germany keeping France. Hitler never attacks the USSR, he believes them to be too strong, for now. Later the US fights Japan while Germany fights USSR in WW2. US and Germany sign a peace treaty in the war, and UK gets angry at the US. Btw, I disagree with your analysis. I think if Russia got Germany, there would have been no Russian revolution. There would have been no issue with which the Bolsheviks could rally the ordinary folks (such as a losing war). Imran Siddiqui |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-05-98 04:58 AM ET
Another scenario: As you know Franklin Roosevelt suffered from polio as a child, but what if FDR died from the disease? I see two distinct lines. One is that the President winning in 1932 in a conservative Democrat like Cox. He doesn't solve the problem and in 1936, Huey Long is elected President and makes the US a fascist state. He wanted (in real life) to tax all incomes over $1 million, 100%, and give that money to the poor. Private Property and Free Market is still there (free market distinquishes Communism from Fascism) but their are huge taxes (assume the government becomes fascist). Because of this new fascist government, Long joins with Hitler (another fascist leader) in 1938 with a peace agreement. In WW2, the US stays neutral throughout the entire war, not wanting to anger Germany or the Allies. While stalemate is on the Western front, the USSR crushes Germany on the Eastern front. Hitler kills himself, and Goering takes over and makes peace with the USSR, blaming Operation Barberossa on Hiler. The USSR gets all land to the west of Germany. The UK signs peace with Germany, after Churchill's party is voted out after a horrd war, where the only definate victories were in North Africa. Germany keeps France and Goering's conquest of Italy (after Mussolini) succeeds as well. US-German peace flouishs while US-UK peace breaks off. The UK decides to ally with the USSR over former PM Churchill's objections. A new Cold War begins: a US/Germany v. USSR/UK. The other option I'll post later, but it involves US socialism. Imran Siddiqui |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-05-98 02:56 PM ET
Imran, that last scenario is excellent. Facist US and Germany pitted against socialist UK and USSR. However I think you meant that the USSR gets all territory EASST of Germany, not West. More on the alternative histories: Tarquin the Proud never becomes Rome's worst and final king. Instead Rome has a line of visionary kings who exercise absolute power and conquer Italy, without ever creating the Senate or the Roman Republic. How would things be different under the Roman Kingdom instead of the Republic? My guess is that things go much the same, but, like the Empire, the Kingship eventually goes bad. Around 0 AD the inbred kings who had lead pipes taking them their drinking water start becoming bad. But their immense power they've built up over the years removes the possibility of a revolt to republicanism. Instead its the palace intrigue of the Empire, with cousins plotting to kill cousins to be the next in line. This decay insures that the Empire stops expanding earlier and is overrun sooner, setting off the Dark Ages around 250 AD. Christianity probably never becomes widespread because even if a king did convert to it, it would be too late too put the force of the Roman Empire into it. Christianity remains a minority religion. The Jewish revolt of 70 AD succeds due to the civil war that is going on when they revolt; the Romans are too busy fighting themselves to try and take them out. There is no diaspora and a Jewish state remains there until the coming of Mohammed. Europe is once again fragmented into various Germanic states, but less of the culture of the Romans survives. With no unifying force of the Church, politics becomes secular earlier. The Crusades never occur, and Europe comes into contact with the vast storehouses of learning that the Arabs later than they do originally. States develop and unify in Europe, probably in a totally different pattern than we know now, except that the Arabs might have penetrated farther into France (or less far). |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-05-98 04:54 PM ET
You forgot to mention whether the two separations (West and East(Byzantium) Roman Empire and West(Catholic) and East(Orthodox) Church) would happen and whether the capital of the Empire would actually move from Rome to Byzantium (later named Constantinople). The most important issue for Western civilization(I like this word) however, is whether the Roman Empire would last long enough to become a Greek one(as long as culture is concerned). If not, and without widespread Christianity all Europe (apart from South East) would fall into the Middle Ages more quickly and it is doubtful whether it would be out by December 1998 . |
| CrackGenius |
posted 12-05-98 05:18 PM ET
Comment to Alpha 13 and Autarch: Facts about the wars between Greek states and Persian Empire: 1) First Persian attack: 100,000 Persians cross the Aegean sea and land just outside Athens. 10,000 Athenians led by Miltiades defeat them with almost no losses. 2) Second Persian attack: 500,000 Persians invade from Thrace and proceed without serious battles until Thermopyles where just 300 Spartans(long live SMAC ) led by Leonidas stop them for days and they could evem won them but a Greek traitor shows the Persians a way to surround the Spartans and eventually kill them. The Persian army invades Athens without resistance (the Athenians had left) and totally destroys the city. In a sea-battle the whole Persian navy is destroyed by the combined Greek one led by Themistocles and Persians withdraw from Athens. Half the Persian army returns to Persia while the other half remains in central Greece. A few months later the Peloponisians (mainly Spartans and Corinthians) attack the Persian army (about 250,000 men) and eliminate it. Persia never attacks Greek states again.3) Alexander the Great becomes King of Macedonia and defeats the other Greek city-states (apart from Sparta) to unite Greece for the first time in history. He leads a combined Greek army against the large Persian Empire. With his 40,000 he fights 3 major battles and wins them all with minor losses. The first one against 100,000 Persians, the second against 200-300,000 Persians and the third against 1 million men led by Darius himself. Supplies were not a problem for the 1 million army because it was formed just for one battle inside the Persian Empire. BTW the song "Alexander the Great" is generally accurate. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-05-98 07:12 PM ET
Snowfire I'm glad you like my FDR death proposal. Here is the other scenario. FDR is dead (like I stated before). The president elected in 1932 in more liberal than FDR (who actually wasn't that liberal and spurned communist effeorts by his cabinet). Lets say the President is Henry A. Wallace. He turns the nation socialistic to fix the Depression. The US makes peace with the USSR. When Hitler attacks the USSR, the US enters and open a new front immediatly to help their Russian friends. However, the number of trained troops are not enough and Americans get slaughtered in France in 1942. The US does manage to slowly win in Japan with the USSR helping them. By late 1943, the US enters the European theater again, by resupplying the Soviet Union, with troops and cargo crossing the Barents Sea, and then beaing transported accross Russia. The Germans are defeated and Berlin taken in early 1944. The USSR takes all the land up to and including Germany. While in the Pacific the war against Japan finishes in 1946, after an invasion of Tokyo by combined US-USSR forces. A Cold War develops between The UK and the US/USSR alliance. The first atomic weapon is tested by the Brits in Persia, in a testing led by J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Albert Einstein, all immigrants from fromer Axis powers. The UK, which was going to give up its colonies decides to keep them because of their role as the world's greatest democracy. In 1950, combined US and USSR scientists develop the Atomic bomb as well. The US closes its borders because of the huge number of US conservatives escaping to Mexico and Canada. These conservatives then ally themselves with the UK by taking leadership roles in their new countries. Imran Siddiqui |
| WCW |
posted 12-05-98 07:57 PM ET
Imram A possible end to your scenario in that Canada becomes the richest nation on earth and gets its two closet neighbours, US and USSR to convert to Capitalism after a war which Canadian technology deflects nukews from it to the other country(US missiles to USSr and vice versa) and remains strong until the unified world government takes over.  WCW |
| PawtheUnstuk |
posted 12-05-98 09:32 PM ET
Let's go with the Dunkirk thing. Let's say Hitler conquers France and all that. First of all, the US has approxametely zero army, even with FDR in power it took us two years to get into the war. Now, Britain will certainly pull out of Africa ASAP. Let's say that that holds off Hitler. However, Hitler can now take and hold the Middle East. Now, guess what! Hitler doesn't need to attack Russia! Most of why he did it was for the oil anyway, after it was clear he couldn't get enough of it from the Middle East. He can proabablyjust bunker down where he is and do pretty well. Of course, there is a good chance he'll get Britain. Either way, the future is unlikely to change with the US and Russia once again becoming the big powers. |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-05-98 10:44 PM ET
One quick thing going back to what I said awhile ago, on why Mao would be more succesful the better the Japanese did: Yes, Chaiang-Kai-Shek foought the Japanese. But not much. He was very stingy with troops, and once he realized that Japoan would be defeated with his help or not, he did no more than to fight a holding action. He was training his best troops for the resumption of the Chinese Civil War. The big reason why Mao did better was that while your history textbooks will show impressive Japanese penetration into China. But China's large. There was no way Japan could hold onto every bit. After the war was over, Chaing was surprised to find that most of the countryside that was supposed to be held by the Japanese was in fact held by the communists and had been so far quite awhile. In this way, all the territory that was listed as Japanese was really communist, except for the cities which the Japanese did hold. It also set the future trend: Mao found his support in the country, Chiang in the cities. And William Jennings Bryan's theory on the supremacy of the countryside held out, too: Mao won. If the Japanese had penetrated less area, Mao would have had less of an initial starting block to lose, and he might have been destroyed in the Long March. CrackG: There would be no split in the church. I'm assuming that Christianity never really comes to power, and stays about as popular as Hugenots in France during the 1700's, except replace the Catholics with Pagans. Since all only follow the authority of the Bible and not some mythical holy place like Rome or Constantinople, there is no split for a long time. |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-06-98 02:32 AM ET
Just to bounce an idea off you (that's mainly what I've been doing), I read another story (I like Alternative Fiction stories, I have plenty more) in which Jesus Christ, instead of being killed and a mayrter, was punished by flooging or something, and died of old age. Now the author suggest that Chrisitanity never took root in many people. They couldn't rally around Christ's memory. Also the author says that because of this Rome conquers the world. I disagree with her (or is it his) analysis. I think Rome would have collapse anyway, due to barbaric raids and structural inefficiencies. Maybe later, but it would have collapsed. So, maybe the Muslims got deeper into Europe and wielded increadible control. What's is on your minds? Imran Siddiqui |
| Roland |
posted 12-08-98 11:24 AM ET
Question: would there have been Islam if there hadn't been christianity ? With a slight shift in events, would Mohammed have been born at all ? On the persian army, 1 million seems to be too much. The empire may have had 10-20 million people. Compare: Rome: 50-80 million, army of 500.000; China up to 50-100 Million, army 1 million (about that time at most). |
| Saras |
posted 12-08-98 01:29 PM ET
ahem What if Lithuania does not unite with Poland and conquers it instead and after turning catholic (it was considered "cool" and "civilised" by Lithuanians at that time) becomes a force that would play half the Russia's role in history? This would have been possible if Grand Duke Vytautas had a male heir, and the country would have continued its rise. Europe would no longer have a single policeman in the east to sort things out when Germans or French got too ambitious Or Lithuania (including a province of Poland) turns to deal with Russia, and takes it. While the Lithuanian rule is quite lax and allows religious and cultural freedom, virtually no tax and only requests troops for the army, the Russians do not revolt. Later, as Vilnius becomes the heart of European culture and the most cosmopolitan, tolerant and scientifically advanced city, republican ideals develop and in 1700's a federal republic is announced, with former provinces as states. The country becomes less aggressive, and only pushes further east by exploration. United states of Europe? Imagine Europe with a US in the east. hehehehehe |
| Saras |
posted 12-08-98 01:30 PM ET
ahem What if Lithuania does not unite with Poland and conquers it instead and after turning catholic (it was considered "cool" and "civilised" by Lithuanians at that time) becomes a force that would play half the Russia's role in history? This would have been possible if Grand Duke Vytautas had a male heir, and the country would have continued its rise. Europe would no longer have a single policeman in the east to sort things out when Germans or French got too ambitious Or Lithuania (including a province of Poland) turns to deal with Russia, and takes it. While the Lithuanian rule is quite lax and allows religious and cultural freedom, virtually no tax and only requests troops for the army, the Russians do not revolt. Later, as Vilnius becomes the heart of European culture and the most cosmopolitan, tolerant and scientifically advanced city, republican ideals develop and in 1700's a federal republic is announced, with former provinces as states. The country becomes less aggressive, and only pushes further east by exploration. United states of Europe? Imagine Europe with a US in the east. hehehehehe |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-08-98 05:03 PM ET
Hehe. If Lithuania SURVIVED in that position I'd be impressed. The real Republic of Poland ended up getting trapped in between Prussia, the Austrian Monarchy, and Russia. The result was getting sliced and partitioned up between them without a fight since it was in such disarray. Lithuania would not have been in much better a position, unless it did push toward attacking Russia early on, which would be difficult. Even still, they would have had the Swedes to contend with, and after Brandenburg-Prussia aquired East Prussia, that would be another dagger pointed at the heart of Lithuania. So surival, much less Vilnius as the heart of Eastern Europe, would be the main deal with the deadly squeeze from East, West, and South. |
| Saras |
posted 12-09-98 06:08 AM ET
Attacking the portion of Russia still not under Lithuania's control would not have been hard - the borderline was some 10-20 km from Moscow (hehehehehe, better that Hitler!). In 1410-1490 Lithuania had one of the most modern armies in Europe. The largest canon foundry in Europe was actually in Vilnius. And the threats that you mentioned (Austria and Prussia) would not be threats until some late 1600's. BTW, all of Prussia would be Lithuania, since it was a direct vassal of the Polish crown, (plus the now extinct Aestian (Balt) nation of Prussians was to Lithuanians same thing Greeks were to Romans)and maybe Germany would never be what it is now. I admit that the naval question would have to be addressed early on to make Swededish less of a threat, but I do not believe that combined forces of Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania would not withstand Swedes just as well as the Russians did in land battle. Even better, since the army would be much more modern and would have more cannon. |
| Heckler |
posted 12-09-98 04:10 PM ET
How about this one The winter in Valley Forge was even worse than in real life and with so few supplies the soldiers begin to desert to thier farms (hunger and cold driving them) the British hear of this and attack the reduced garrison crushing it and killing Washington. With its best general dead the Revolution fails and in retaliation the British increase the taxes and put a larger troop presence than before in the colonies. Franklin and Jefferson flee west to the Indian lands and after "going native" (a term that will not be coined for another century) unite the tribes in a war to reclaim the lands lost to the white man. They suceed mainly due to superior weaponry (rifled barrels and a few repeating rifle prototypes) and advanced calvary tactics, the British maintain thier hold on the cities but the countryside belongs firmly to the Indian Republic as the new country comes to be known. After years of having to pay massive tax to the Crown, combined with the added strain of constant raids the cities revolt again. This time they succeed <sp?> as they attack is launched simultaneously, Indian forces striking in tandem with local militia. The revolt suceeds and with the fall of each city signal fires let the forces in the next know to attack, in one night the British forces in the new world are wiped out. However the British not being occupied with Canada (long a part of the Indian Republic) immediately strip every garrison in the western hemisphere in preperation for a massive assault on the american continent. The ships carrying a combined force of close to 200,000 men sit just out of sight of the american shore for 2 weeks waiting for a moonless night to run the gamut of cannon protecting Boston and New York harbors. They wait to long as a hurricane comes up the coast and sinks every ship, its back broken the British empire falls apart within a decade. The Indian Republic spreads over the entirety of north america from Canada and Alaska down to Panama. Slavery though not outlawed is reduced to fixed terms and a "Slaves Bill of Rights" is instituted in 1790 due to great pressure from the Native American segment of Congress, some former slaves chose to remain in the Republic most however take part in the "Great Exodus" and return to Africa where using the knowledge gained while serving they form a loose federation of disperate tribes united for common defense. Heckler Any ideas? |
| Imran Siddiqui |
posted 12-09-98 05:47 PM ET
Heckler, intriguing, but what happens to the Indian confederation, or whatever, afterwards, and could two white guys convince the Indians to take back their land from other whilte guys?? I wonder. Well, what about this one: Trotsky takes over after Lenin's death, instead of Stalin. Would the Cold War have taken place? Would they have entered into the peace agreement? What would the future hold? Imran Siddiqui |
| Saras |
posted 12-10-98 09:38 AM ET
Now matter how sad it is, I have to admit that my scenario is crap. I saw two prominent Lithuanian historians on TV yesterday, and they broke me - they said that Lithuania, despite the territorial gains in the 15th century, was still a backward country with crappy agriculture, very low population density and far far behind Saxony or France. But if in the 15th century a number of things were done right, my master plan might have actually worked |
| Saras |
posted 12-10-98 09:41 AM ET
What if the soviet union did not fall apart and Lithuania was still a soviet republic? I would not be posting... |
| Spoe |
posted 12-10-98 04:31 PM ET
You might be, you'd just have to go through kremvax to do it. :P Ok, Ok, so this one was fictitious, but the first USENET node in the Soviet Union was at demos.su(according the my copy of the New Hacker's Dictionary: http://www.elsewhere.org/jargon_search/TAG1005.html) about 90. So you might have been able to get comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic |
| Saras |
posted 12-11-98 04:09 AM ET
THIS WOULD SUCK  |
| SnowFire |
posted 12-14-98 02:22 AM ET
Sid Meier is stillborn. Strategy gaming is set back by years. We never waste time at this site. What else? I'm not sure what to say. Please continue. |
| Saras |
posted 12-14-98 04:21 AM ET
this would suck more  |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.